In one sense it is a narrow decision--the holding is simply that a state can't force "a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees." That is in itself uncontroversial--do states require designers of creative rosaries to also design creative Islamic religious devices? The mystery is w…
In one sense it is a narrow decision--the holding is simply that a state can't force "a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees." That is in itself uncontroversial--do states require designers of creative rosaries to also design creative Islamic religious devices? The mystery is why Colorado seems to have argued that it can. See my reply to Spence of Austin's comment elsewhere in this thread.
The problem is what I think of as "precedential creep." Lower courts interpret the holding to do more than it does based on the arguments, not the holding. And idiots like the Michigan woman read it as "free reign to discriminate" and some courts will agree with her.
Witness Scalia's assertion that his gun control decision was limited to handguns. And what bets that the "limited to abortion" ruling will find itself cited by the court itself to throw laws on contraception or interracial marriage back to the states?
I disagree. It is a very broad decision applied to "facts" that did not even exist. And this is where standing comes in. And yes, I know all about pre-enforcement challenges. But here we have a woman who never designed wedding websites. She had no track record of doing so. The one inquiry she got was false or fraudulent. When deciding constitutional issues, courts need to fashion as narrow a remedy as possible so as to address the issue at hand. But that was not done here. Regardless of any "stipulated facts" - and that was astounding malfeasance on the part of Colorado's AG - this case needed to be sent back for the development of a record. The plaintiff needed to be asked: What steps have you taken to enter the wedding website business? Precisely, what are your designs? Will they be templates? Will they permit customers to offer their own messages? What precisely would you be accommodating with? Are you just objecting to photos showing two same sex people? And then as to the phony request:
What are you asking this designer to do? What do you want to say? Did she respond?
If she did not respond isn't that evidence the whole thing was a sham?
The Supreme Court is not a g-d legislature. They have no business issuing hypothetical decisions. This decision is basically - this woman who does not do this thing which we're really not sure of isn't going to be sanctioned for not doing it. That's insane.
And people should be very p-d off at the Court for doing this.
It isn't clear on what basis you make this statement -- the evidence would suggest that the people who created it and the court itself perceive it as such.
In one sense it is a narrow decision--the holding is simply that a state can't force "a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees." That is in itself uncontroversial--do states require designers of creative rosaries to also design creative Islamic religious devices? The mystery is why Colorado seems to have argued that it can. See my reply to Spence of Austin's comment elsewhere in this thread.
The problem is what I think of as "precedential creep." Lower courts interpret the holding to do more than it does based on the arguments, not the holding. And idiots like the Michigan woman read it as "free reign to discriminate" and some courts will agree with her.
Witness Scalia's assertion that his gun control decision was limited to handguns. And what bets that the "limited to abortion" ruling will find itself cited by the court itself to throw laws on contraception or interracial marriage back to the states?
I disagree. It is a very broad decision applied to "facts" that did not even exist. And this is where standing comes in. And yes, I know all about pre-enforcement challenges. But here we have a woman who never designed wedding websites. She had no track record of doing so. The one inquiry she got was false or fraudulent. When deciding constitutional issues, courts need to fashion as narrow a remedy as possible so as to address the issue at hand. But that was not done here. Regardless of any "stipulated facts" - and that was astounding malfeasance on the part of Colorado's AG - this case needed to be sent back for the development of a record. The plaintiff needed to be asked: What steps have you taken to enter the wedding website business? Precisely, what are your designs? Will they be templates? Will they permit customers to offer their own messages? What precisely would you be accommodating with? Are you just objecting to photos showing two same sex people? And then as to the phony request:
What are you asking this designer to do? What do you want to say? Did she respond?
If she did not respond isn't that evidence the whole thing was a sham?
The Supreme Court is not a g-d legislature. They have no business issuing hypothetical decisions. This decision is basically - this woman who does not do this thing which we're really not sure of isn't going to be sanctioned for not doing it. That's insane.
And people should be very p-d off at the Court for doing this.
"The Supreme Court is not a g-d legislature."
It isn't clear on what basis you make this statement -- the evidence would suggest that the people who created it and the court itself perceive it as such.
Which people thought that they were setting up a super legislature? Marbury? No.
Trump, McConnell, the Federalist Society, Harlan Crow, etc.